Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 335 (ORI)

Sabitarani Nayak v. State Of Orissa

2019-04-18

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 3. In this transfer application under section 407 of Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Sabitarani Nayak who is the wife of opposite party No.2 Puma Chandra Behera has sought for transfer of G.R. Case No. 528 of 2013 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore for disposal in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the written report of the petitioner before the OIC, Mahila police station, Jeypore Mahila PS, Case No. 14 of 2013 was instituted on 24.02.2013 under sections 498A/294/323/506/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the D P. Act. The Superintendent of Police, Koraput vide its order dated 26.02.2013 directed for sending the FIR along with the letter of Mahila police station, Jeypore to Begunia police station for formal registration and investigation of the case as the place of occurrence of the case was village Gobadiha which comes under Begunia police station in the district of Khurda. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 28.02.2014 under section 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the D.P Act. He files the copy of the charge sheet which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is at present staying at Jeypore Town-1 under the Jeypore police station in the district of Koraput where she is serving as Asst. Revenue Inspector, Jeypore and it would be difficult on her part to come to Khurda which is 505 Kms. away from Jeypore to prosecute the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is at present staying at Jeypore Town-1 under the Jeypore police station in the district of Koraput where she is serving as Asst. Revenue Inspector, Jeypore and it would be difficult on her part to come to Khurda which is 505 Kms. away from Jeypore to prosecute the case. He relied upon the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2012 dated 09.04.2019 where in the Hon'bie Supreme Court held that the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the case of the petitioner. 6. Since this case arises out of matrimonial dispute between the parties and the petitioner is now residing with her minor children at Jeypore and it would be difficult on her part to attend the Court at S.D.J.M., Khurda to prosecute the G.R. Case No. 528 of 2013, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and taking into account the factual position as well as distance between the place of abode of the petitioner and the place where the case is now sought to be tried, I am inclined to accept the prayer made in the application and direct that the G.R. Case No. 528 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda be transferred to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore for disposal in accordance with law. 7. A copy of the order be sent to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda who on receipt of the order shall send the case records of G.R. Case No. 528 of 2013 to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore. 8. Another copy of the order be sent to the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore, who on receipt of the case records from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the TRPCRL is disposed of.